From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkcpV-0005GB-Ac for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:42:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkcpS-0005CU-VQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:42:09 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13088) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkcpS-0005CL-O4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:42:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:45:08 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20121217154508.GA28712@redhat.com> References: <1354887155-32281-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354887155-32281-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v6 0/6] Virtio refactoring. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: fred.konrad@greensocs.com Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:32:29PM +0100, fred.konrad@greensocs.com wrote: > From: KONRAD Frederic > > You can clone that from here : > git.greensocs.com/home/greensocs/git/qemu_virtio.git virtio_refactoring_v6 > > The problem with the last RFC v5 was that virtio-blk refactoring broke > virtio-blk-pci device ( SEGFAULT ). So I modify this last step to fix that > issue. > > In order to not break anything, I think we have to refactor virtio-pci-blk in a > next step then add a supplementary step which clean virtio-blk > ( eg : fix the cast ). > > Does it make sense ? I am yet to go over the patches but I did try to read previous discussion and I am still puzzled about the motivation. One of the previous messages mentioned this is to allow virtio-mmio. Is the point to allow virtio-mmio? Why can't virtio-mmio be just another bus, like a pci bus, and another binding, like the virtio-pci binding? Is the issue that bindings are not devices? I'm sending a patchset to use DeviceState as binding pointer - will this address the issue? If this was covered but I missed this I'll be thankful for pointers if any. Thanks, -- MST